Talk:New Brighton, New Zealand
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Assessment comment
[edit]The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:New Brighton, New Zealand/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
| Ahhh, we live here and everyone refers to it as DogTown, what else do you need? |
Last edited at 06:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 01:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Boundaries
[edit]@Roger 8 Roger and Schwede66: I created an article for North New Brighton (NNB), corresponding to the statistical area of North Beach, which is its old name. I chose not to include the statistical area of Rawhiti between that and New Brighton (NB), because Google Maps tells me properties in that area are part of NB, and the Fire & Emergency maps put Rawhiti in NB. On the other hand, the Christchurch City Council profile for NNB includes Rawhiti. I can switch Rawhiti to NNB if there's opposition to this. I expect to add demographics to NB tomorrow.
For areas south of NB, there is the statistical area of South New Brighton (SNB) which also covers Southshore. We have an article on Southshore but not on SNB. I am happy to write an article on SNB, with the demographics also covering Southshore, or add the demographics to Southshore and redirect SNB there. Alternatively I could write SNB using the small SA1 areas instead of the larger SA2 area, and similarly use SA1 areas for Southshore. There are 15 SA1 areas for SNB and 6 for Southshore, which will make references a little messy. I assume from Google Maps and the Fire & Emergency maps that Caspian Street is the appropriate boundary between SNB and Southshore. Any feedback?-gadfium 04:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- To be honest, I am entirely unaware that there's any defined area between NNB and NB. I didn't know that Rawhiti is a "thing". Schwede66 04:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Agree about Rawhiti being a named area or suburb - it is the name of the park/golf course just north of Brighton pier. I have never heard that area refered to as Rawhiti. My understanding of that whole coastline is that South shore is fairly distinct from SNB, mainly due to geography - it is the long thin strip of land that protrudes from SNB. It is really one road, Rocking Horse road, with several short roads sticking out towawards the ocean on one side and the esturary on the other. RH rd starts at Caspian so that is a natural start poing for SS. At the north end, North shore is also fairly distinct from NNB - it was a new suburb started in the early 90s and starts as the coast rd, Marine pde turns inland and becomes Beach Rd where a road turns north into the North Shore suburb. I understand that NNB and SNB were originally unofficial divides of NB, which was the name of the whole coastline, but over time they were thought of as suburbs in their own right. That might explain why, in my mind, NNB and SNB begin pretty close to the Brighton shops and the pier, which would make New Brighton itself fairly small. I would say Rawhiri golf course and the area around it were in NNB, but that's just my assumption. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you both for your input.-gadfium 07:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I created South New Brighton, which contains demographics for the whole peninsula, and added more specific demographics to Southshore.-gadfium 03:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Information about Saturday trading
[edit]https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19531119.2.11 MurielMary (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
This could be helpful for User:Aerohydro. And this. --Podzemnik (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Here are a few more references I found in Papers Past about Saturday trading in New Brighton:
It seems to be a long story with a lot of interesting aspects. I wonder if someone has written up the history ?? Marshelec (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Here is a link to a scholarly article on the history of the Shop Trading Hours legislation. [1] Provides really useful background, even though it doesn't specifically mention the "exceptions" at New Brighton. (I understand that Coastlands in Paraparaumu was another "exception", where there was Saturday shopping a long time before it became common in 1980). Marshelec (talk) 08:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes a great source and interesting too. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Māori connections
[edit]Thanks for your comments Roger 8 Roger As a result I have shifted this information from under the heading "Naming" and preceded this section with one called "Māori connections" similar to the source of the information in this section from the New Brighton Centre Master Plan by CCC.
Naming
[edit]I removed the following information as it seems incorrect for New Brighton Christchurch -"The Māori name for the area known as New Brighton today is Kaiaua (kai means food and aua is Yellow-eye mullet)[3]" In actuality Kaiaua is Māori for a New Brighton in the Hauraki District and no doubt relates to the mullet in those waters See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiaua Orua Paeroa relates to North New Brighton wetland and beach as a significant mahinga kai location not New Brighton. See https://my.christchurchcitylibraries.com/ti-kouka-whenua/orua-paeroa-north-new-brighton/ KiwiKA (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Great spotting, KiwiKA! MurielMary (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, KiwiKA, well spotted. Not directed at you or anyone in fact, because it was there before your edits, but I have just read the first paragraph about naming, which says: "Though there is no specific Māori name for New Brighton, it is of considerable significance culturally for the local iwi or tribe Ngāi Tahu who are the kaitiaki or guardians of this takiwa or area. Ngāi Tūāhuriri hapū, a (sub tribe) of Ngāi Tahu, hold manawhenua status (territorial rights) in respect to this area. Te Tai o Mahaanui refers to the coast and surrounding land of which New Brighton is a part. Walking trails between Ngāi Tahu settlements passed close to the current retail centre of New Brighton. Ōrua Paeroa near Travis Wetland was one of the closest kāinga / kāika (settlements) to the area now known as New Brighton." And this is backed by sources 3 and 4. Unless I have missed something this bears very little resemblances to what the sources say. Even if the sources do back what is written, I would question this level of detail to an section on the naming of New Brighton. It looks to be an example of unacceptable forking. I would be happy to delete most of it but I'll wait to see what others say. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Can you clarify why you think this information is an example of unacceptable forking? Forking in my experience is creating a new article when the content of an article becomes very detailed in one area. There isn't a new article being created here. MurielMary (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also, I don't agree that this paragraph has too much detail for the section or the article. It's useful information about the history of the area pre-European settlement. MurielMary (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- The forking link says: "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." This is what I meant although perhaps with the word 'deliberately' omitted. This subsection is about the naming of the place. There was no Maori name as the article says so we are left with New Brighton, which is totally English in every way (second paragraph). The first paragraph, after saying there was no Maori name forks off into a description of tribes and the cultural significance of the area. It then talks about a Maori settlement on the Travis wetlands, which is notably not part of contemporary NB, although it might have been loosely connected with the European settlement pre-1900 when the the space between NB and Chc was mainly rural. The article says the Maori settlement was close to the NB area, not part of it. To me this first paragraph is a collection of interesting side stories "forking" off from the naming of New Brighton, to which they have no real connection. Then look at the sources. No 3 is about a 2015 CCC plan to redevelop central NB, which has not even begun - the place has a charming almost ghost town appeal. I assume the source is there because the words 'current retail centre' is mentioned: I cannot see any other connection. The library place name source (4) is more useful, mainly because of the sources it itself uses, which make interesting reading.
- I think the first paragraph about Maori connection would be better put into another section to which it is better related, such as the use of the area prior to the creation of New Brighton. The second paragraph, which is about the naming of New Brighton, could be expanded using the sources in (4).
- IMO, there is always a slight tension in WP articles about towns between the town itself, the land it sits on, and any local authority area that uses the town's name. I think they are all interconnected but I usually focus slightly more on the town itself: others might differ. That first paragraph, almost entirely unreferenced, would be an ideal core of a new article that would fit neatly into a 'See also' section of this New Brighton article. As it currently stands, it seems to be there because it is interesting not because it has any connection to the naming of New Brighton. Sorry if this comes across as a bit of a ramble: succinctness is a quality I too often lack. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am inclined to agree with most of these comments. The article is about the suburb. Early history of the area is relevant and appropriate, but it needs to be closely linked to the area of the suburb. I think the existing content about early Maori settlement and occupation is too broad and strays too far from the subject of this article. The content about Kaiapoi, Banks Peninsula and Port Levy etc is interesting, but it belongs in a different article. I note in passing that there is extensive coverage of early Maory history in History of Canterbury, New Zealand. It could possibly be useful to make a link of some kind to that article. I think that for the New Brighton article, the first paragraph under naming should be moved and merged with relevant content about occupation and use by Maori in pre-European times, of the area now known as New Brighton or its immediate surroundings.Marshelec (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also, I don't agree that this paragraph has too much detail for the section or the article. It's useful information about the history of the area pre-European settlement. MurielMary (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Can you clarify why you think this information is an example of unacceptable forking? Forking in my experience is creating a new article when the content of an article becomes very detailed in one area. There isn't a new article being created here. MurielMary (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, KiwiKA, well spotted. Not directed at you or anyone in fact, because it was there before your edits, but I have just read the first paragraph about naming, which says: "Though there is no specific Māori name for New Brighton, it is of considerable significance culturally for the local iwi or tribe Ngāi Tahu who are the kaitiaki or guardians of this takiwa or area. Ngāi Tūāhuriri hapū, a (sub tribe) of Ngāi Tahu, hold manawhenua status (territorial rights) in respect to this area. Te Tai o Mahaanui refers to the coast and surrounding land of which New Brighton is a part. Walking trails between Ngāi Tahu settlements passed close to the current retail centre of New Brighton. Ōrua Paeroa near Travis Wetland was one of the closest kāinga / kāika (settlements) to the area now known as New Brighton." And this is backed by sources 3 and 4. Unless I have missed something this bears very little resemblances to what the sources say. Even if the sources do back what is written, I would question this level of detail to an section on the naming of New Brighton. It looks to be an example of unacceptable forking. I would be happy to delete most of it but I'll wait to see what others say. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Early settlement
[edit]Thanks for your comments Roger 8 Roger,and Marshelec I have trimmed the information to more succinctly reflect the presence of three iwi in the New Brighton area, pre European times including the walking track to access New Brighton for fishing and swimming as per Rowlands (2006).
- The creation of a separate 'Maori connection' section is useful. so why have you continued to put further detail in the 'early settlement' section? First, it does not belong there: New Brighton began around 1860. There was no settlement there before. Also, what you have added is totally off-topic and irrelevant to New Brighton: what has Maori arrival in NZ got to do with New Brighton, or food sources in Canterbury? The detail you have provided is useful but not in this article. Try somewhere else or start a new article yourself. Can you please explain your reasoning for putting this detail here? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Transportation
[edit]The current content of this section is almost entirely historical. I recommend it is relocated into the History section, probably as a sub-topic.Marshelec (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Proposed structure of article
[edit]After in-person discussions between editors, the following is a proposed structure for this article:
- History
- Māori settlement
- Early colonial settlement (including naming of the settlement and historical information on transportation e.g. trams, rail and steamer)
- Location
- Transport (this would be contemporary information on roads and buses)
- Economy (including Saturday trading)
- Education
- Demographics
- Sport and recreation (including hot pools, watersports, golf, parks, QEII / Taiora)
- Landmarks (include the pier here)
- Notable people
MurielMary (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- Looks good. I wonder if the title "Maori settlement" should be changed to 'Maori connection' or similar, simply because there was no Maori settlement as far as I know. NB used to be a holiday destination for Christchurch people within living memory. I will see if I can find any sources about this, including the camp ground there. Depending on sources found that might warrant another section, or just add something to one of the subsections you mention. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)